Dimatulac v.

Villon

Facts: A complaint was filed against the accused for the death of SPO3 Virgilio Dimatulac
who, accordingto the information, was shot dead by them. Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Alfonso-Flores
conducted areinvestigation, not being clear whether or not the same was done motu proprio or upon
motion ofprivate respondents. In the Resolution, APP found that the Yabuts and assailant Danny were
the onlyones against whom probable cause was found, to the exclusion of others, and downgraded the
felonycharged from murder to homicide. Complainants filed an appeal on the resolution to the DOJ.
Privateprosecutor also filed a motion to defer on the ground of the said appeal, which the judge then
denied.Issue: Whether or not the appeal to the DOJ would have been sufficient ground to defer
thearraignment and trial.Ruling: Yes.

After the trial court granted the appellants’ motion for reinvestigation, it became incumbent

upon the court to hold in abeyance the arraignment and trial of the case until the City Fiscal shall
haveconducted and made his report on the result of such reinvestigation. That was a matter of duty on
itspart, not only to be consistent with its own order but also to do justice and at the same time to avoid
apossible miscarriage of justice. The underlined portion indisputably shows that the section refers
toappeals by respondents or accused. So we held in Marcelo v. Court of Appeals that nothing in
the rulingin Crespo v. Mogul, reiterated in Roberts v. Court of Appeals, forecloses the power or authority
of theSecretary of Justice to review resolutions of his subordinates in criminal cases despite an
informationalready having been filed in court. The Secretary of Justice is only enjoined to refrain, as far
aspracticable, from entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the action of the prosecutor once a

complaint or information is filed in court. In any case, the grant of a motion to dismiss, which
theprosecution may file after the Secretary of Justice reverses an appealed resolution, is subject to
thediscretion of the court. In Roberts we went further by saying that Crespo could not have foreclosed
said

power or authority of the Secretary of Justice “without doing violence to, or repealing, the lastparagraph
of Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court” which is quoted above.